Yeah I have read his work (the revolution) as well as obama's audacity of hope but would like to have their similarities and differences in a concise matter....

is it possible to be able to support both of these candidates without contradicting oneself? they obviously have a similiar view on iraq, though obama's push towards afghanistan would not be supported by ron.

The biggest one would be their differnces in government spending. Paul would have liked to shrink government quite a bit and I imagine probably would have wanted to refine and simplify our tax code.

Obama, and for most of the left, the thought of reducing government spending or shrinking doesn't seem to even be on their radar.

Click to expand...

Funny, because Clinton balanced his budget and Bush grew the government. Go back and do your homework before you just rattle off your inaccurate, unfounded and ignorant opinions.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed and Obama are going to spend on America because Bush and Tom Delay spent 6 years ignoring America and only spent on defense and the rich. So what you might consider overspending might be long overdue and necessary.

Will I love all their pork projects? No. But they won't purposely empty the treasury like Bush did. And why did he? Because he wants to prove Government doesn't work so he can outsource it all. He bankrupted the treasury so to end Social Security. Most Americans disapprove of that.

And he broke the military so he could outsource it to Haloburton and Blackwater. Now there was some overspending. But you don't care about that now do you?

Yeah I have read his work (the revolution) as well as obama's audacity of hope but would like to have their similarities and differences in a concise matter....

is it possible to be able to support both of these candidates without contradicting oneself? they obviously have a similiar view on iraq, though obama's push towards afghanistan would not be supported by ron.

Click to expand...

People say I confuse them because I seem like a lefty liberal but also talk like Ron Paul. Dr. Paul went on Air America and Randi Rhodes said she would like him, if he wasn't a Conservative and possible racist. So on social issues, they differ greatly. And ending social security might be a Ron Paul thing.

So while I agree with Dr. Paul that the IRS and Federal Reserve is the root of all evil, I would not like the path he would take us down if he were calling all the shots.

Pretty sure Dr. Paul would undo what FDR did:

The New Deal was the title that President Franklin Roosevelt gave to a sequence of programs and promises he initiated between 1933 and 1938 with the goal of giving relief to the poor, reform of the financial system, and recovery of the economy during the Great Depression.

And Ron Paul is a racist. Or he had a newsletter for 20 years that said some very racist things.

A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

So he didn't write them but it was his newsletter so if you are going to put your name on something.....

By the way, this may just be how "the man" took him down after he came out and said the income tax is unconstitutional.

So I fully agree with some things he says, but viamently disagree with the other half. He's more a Libertarian.

Funny, because Clinton balanced his budget and Bush grew the government. Go back and do your homework before you just rattle off your inaccurate, unfounded and ignorant opinions.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed and Obama are going to spend on America because Bush and Tom Delay spent 6 years ignoring America and only spent on defense and the rich. So what you might consider overspending might be long overdue and necessary.

Will I love all their pork projects? No. But they won't purposely empty the treasury like Bush did. And why did he? Because he wants to prove Government doesn't work so he can outsource it all. He bankrupted the treasury so to end Social Security. Most Americans disapprove of that.

And he broke the military so he could outsource it to Haloburton and Blackwater. Now there was some overspending. But you don't care about that now do you?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!